Hillary advisor: ‘Too many people’

April 3, 2009

In case you missed it, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s science advisor, Nina Fedoroff, told the BBC on March 31 that,

[Humans had exceeded the Earth’s] limits of sustainability… We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people… There are probably already too many people on the planet.”

A question for Dr. Federoff: Exactly who are the surplus people?

You know, the eugenicists only hated some people — those they viewed as genetically defective. The Nina Federoffs of the world seem to be even more indiscriminate.

9 Responses to “Hillary advisor: ‘Too many people’”

Yes Federoff IS WORSE THAN A NAZI. And I’m sorry that I didn’t read your link to whatever propagandist article validates your position, but I have a little higher intellect than that. I’ll instead point you to the real world, where every time someone says “The population is growing too fast”, free markets and human innovation make them look like a complete boob inside of a few decades. Malthus was proven to be DEAD WRONG. And thus these Malthusian claims today are even more ridiculous, because they’ve already been proven wrong once. This is why Federoff is worse than a Nazi. Hitler was an environmentalist, animal rights activist, and person that wanted to see a lot of other people dead. So fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. That Federoff has chosen to ignore the lessons of Hitler and Malthus, and stay on the wrong side of this argument, I’d say she’s the bigger criminal. So while I’m not foolish enough to buy this song and dance the second time around I am nonetheless thoroughly disgusted to hear representatives of elected officials giving them a second life. There are thousands of discussions to be had on the topic before we jump to abortion, castration and total governmental reproductive control. So the fact that there are those, like you and Federoff, who would forego those discussions and jump straight to these measures is much much much scarier than Hitler or Nazis.

What psychological need does it fulfill for you to so freely encroach your bankrupt politics on the reproductive freedom of the 6+ billion citizens of this planet? My advice to you is less news media, more shrink.

Do you mean to imply that Dr. Federoff is worse than a Nazi?
On a separate note, to say they only hated “some people” is an enormous understatement, they only preferred that there be one supreme Aryan race. No other. In all cases of genocidal atrocities, like the current one taking place in Darfur, Africa, it is very obvious and clear that the people who promote or spread the goals and intentions of a genocide intend to eliminate all but their own “similar looking” people.
To even begin to associate her with such a group of people (eugenicists) is beyond me, and I think that a better conclusion could have been drawn. (hopefully an honest mistake)
I would like to find out soon as to what you would say to this.
note, (and this may be your source as well; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm )

Too many people? I’d say too many pessimists. Think of the amount of waste and inefficiency that humans generate now. Improvements in that aspect alone will allow more growth and progress so that everyone’s potential can be explored. More people equals more ingenuity. Malthus was wrong in his time, as are those who now proclaim “limits to growth”.

The original post referred to “eugenicists” not to Nazis. Do not confuse eugenics – which involved sterilizing the unfit or otherwise preventing them from marrying – and genocide, which usually had nothing to do with Darwinism or eugenics. The eugenics movement had a great many supporters: Shaw, Wells, Fisher, Galton, et al. The progressives insisted it was “scientific” to identify the unfit and prevent them from [somehow] circumventing Darwin’s laws and outbreeding the better sort.

Thank you for saying this. The comparison bothered me, though both groups obviously had similar thoughts about “cleansing”. Bad ideas can come from anywhere.

That being said I don’t think it’s a bad idea to reduce population growth in order to conserve resources. Reducing growth is not the same as killing people, it’s just family planning. Most of which is done very naturally by considering one’s resources in whether they should reproduce.

The article linked mentions nothing about nazis, eugenics, or encroaching on reproductive rights. It is however mostly a shill for the genetically modified food industry.

In a very basic sense there will be a time when the amount of humans makes human life unsustainable on earth. The solutions we come to (if any) are what will define our character as a species.

You obviously don’t trust Nina Fedoroff, so who are you going to trust enough to tell you when we’ve reached that point?